FINAL THESIS

THREE ARTIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATIONS
MAJOR ROLE IN THE CURRENT
EVOLUTION OF ARTS FUNDING

A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
Linda Berghoff
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science in Arts Administration
August 2014

i
Copyright 2014
Linda M. Berghoff
All Rights Reserved

ii
DEDICATIONS
Dedicated to my mother Lois and
my brother Daniel

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Anne-Imelda Radice for her
guidance, support and patience. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jean
Brody whose encouragement was invaluable.
Secondly, I would like to thank Christina McCormack of The Leepa Rattner
Museum of Art for her assistance and impact on my topic as well as artist Edra Soto,
artist-in-residence at the Robert Rauschenberg summer residency program.
Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the continued support
of my family, especially my brother Daniel, who gave his expert assistance and
suggestions throughout this process.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………….. v
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………….. vi
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………... 1
CHAPTER ONE - THE VALUE OF ARTIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATIONS …..... 11
CHAPTER TWO - THE FOUNDATION PLAYERS ………………………………. 26
CHAPTER THREE - FINDINGS AND FUTURE TRENDS OF THREE
FOUNDATIONS …………………………………………………………………….. 42
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………….. 46
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………….. 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………….. 47

v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - EXAMPLE OF RESIDENCY (RRF) ……………………………….. 51-53
FIGURE 2 - EXAMPLE OF ARTIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATION CHART ……54
FIGURE 3 - EXAMPLE OF AWFVA GRAPHICS ……………………………….. 55
FIGURE 4 - EXAMPLE OF RRF GRAPHICS ……………………………………. 56

vi
ABSTRACT
For the past two decades, artist-endowed foundations have been making their
presence felt across America. These charitable foundations, endowed by artists, are
dramatically changing the arts landscape. Although federal funding for the arts is
decreasing, artist-endowed foundations are increasing in number and revenue.
These foundations focus on grant-making for artists, arts organizations, museums, arts
related research, arts education, scholarships, and programs for artists.
This thesis examines the affect of federal funding on artists and art organizations.
Three distinct artist-endowed foundations are explored, revealing the ripple effect that
these foundations are having by developing new models of support for artists and art
organizations.

1
INTRODUCTION
The 2010 Aspen Institute‟s National Study of Artist-Endowed Foundations led
by former Ford Foundation Deputy Director Christine J. Vincent is the first survey “to
focus on this distinctive charitable form.” (Szanto 2011) Fueled in part by the rise of the
contemporary art market with particular relevance to the visual arts, the number of
artist-endowed foundations has nearly doubled since 1990 and they are becoming a
singular phenomenon in cultural philanthropy. “In addition to overseeing individual
artists by documenting and protecting their work, such foundations, through
hands-on involvement with other artists and organizations, are discovering the best and
most efficient ways to provide much needed support at a time when traditional funding
sources are shrinking.” (Kinsella 2012).
My research question focuses on artist-endowed foundations and how they have
played a significant role in the future of arts funding for artists and art organizations.
This is worthy of study because of their increasing numbers and their distinctive asset
mix and active engagement in the contemporary art field which sets them apart from the
majority of other foundations.
The research was qualitative based on interviews with professionals in the field
conducted by the author, and reviews of forms 990-PF to provide a comparison of three
artist-endowed foundations. The three artist-endowed-foundations selected for this study
were the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWFVA), the Joan Mitchell
Foundation (JMF), and the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation (RRF). All three artist-
endowed-foundations were selected for their unique grant making activities, as well as
their influence on this emerging field of cultural philanthropy. Early in the research

2
process, it became clear that the Form 990-PF‟s reflected the varied nature and function
of these three artist-endowed foundations and the differing ways in which assets are
utilized and therefore reported. The primary limitation is the lack of information on the
art and cultural benefits of artist-endowed foundations as more than half of them arrived
on the scene in the last 15 years. Hence, there is a need to research further the potential
that artist-endowed foundations may have towards the continued vitality of artists and art
organizations. In my research I examined the influence that these three distinct artist-
endowed-foundations have had on artists and art organizations. This study compares the
three artist-endowed foundations by examining their mission approach to programming,
how they are organized, the number of grants, and their scope of influence from this type
of philanthropy. In addition, research of current journals and articles that explore the
diverse activities of these three artist-endowed foundations was valuable as they have
affected many communities in the United States.
By examining the three artist-endowed foundations it is apparent that they
are not static and are continuously evolving in their function to invest in art projects
that recognize the educational and economic contributions artists make. It is important to
note that this paper reflects my research during the past year, as this topic is rapidly
evolving. This area of study is important as government funding has significantly
reduced federal spending available to the arts, and these foundations are working to
develop strategies to encourage support of individual artists and arts organizations. Also
“the reliance on art as an asset gives rise to unique complications” because most of these
organizations‟ assets are in artworks. (Szanto 2011). My intention is to focus on the
influence artist-endowed foundations have as new “bloodlines” for artists and arts
organizations, “pulsing wherever they can to make sure that art prevails by answering to

3
our collective creative conscience, not special interests and lobbyists” (Sofa 2011).
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THREE ARTIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATIONS
Many artists have created challenging works in multiple mediums testing the
society in which they were produced. As the artists whose legacies generated these three
artist-endowed foundations, each organization stresses a unique character of operation.
The AWFVA and the RRF operate exhibition programs and contribute art works to
museums. The JMF and the RRF manage artist residency programs, and conduct art
education and cultural programs. In addition artist-endowed foundations see themselves
as a dynamic presence in the world of cultural philanthropy.
Although similarities are shared between these three artist-endowed
foundations, differences can be found in the outcomes of their exhibitions and programs.
Due to past controversial exhibitions and new media approaches by artists, art
exhibitions and collaborative projects are prevailing in art organizations across the
country. This can be summarized by the influence of private funding to the visual arts.
By examining past National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) individual fellowships,
artists‟ needs, past exhibitions, and artist-endowed foundations, this paper proposes
the potential that these philanthropic organizations may have on future arts funding.
As of 2014 there are 363 artist-endowed foundations in the United States. This
paper addresses three distinct artist-endowed foundations; The Andy Warhol
Foundation for the Visual Arts, The Joan Mitchell Foundation, and The Robert
Rauschenberg Foundation. In reviewing the three foundations‟ mission approach, and
scope of influence as a basis for discussion, this paper addresses ways in which these
three foundations utilize their funding to move forward to a desired future for artists and

4
art organizations.
Andy Warhol committed his estate to advance the visual arts by establishing The
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWFVA) in 1987. The foundation
conducts one of the largest grant making programs in the U.S. for visual arts and has
contributed a collection of 3,000 works to create The Andy Warhol Museum in
Pittsburgh, Pa. In addition, the foundation established a public charity grant program for
individual artists (Creative Capital) with a focus on supporting visual art that is
experimental, under-recognized, or challenging in nature, while emphasizing a strong
commitment to freedom of artistic expression.
Similar to the AWFVA and the commitment to the visual arts is the Joan
Mitchell Foundation (JMF), which was formed in 1993 to support contemporary
artists and broaden diversity through artists‟ programs, arts education, and community
outreach art programs. The foundation supports visual artists by awarding individual
artist grants, aid programs, and funding for arts organizations. In response to artists
impacted by the 9/11 tragedy, Hurricane Katrina, and most recently Hurricane Sandy, the
foundation awarded emergency grants to artists working directly with these communities.
One of the “new kids on the block” of artist-endowed foundations that is
influencing the visual arts is the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation (RRF), which was
formed in 1990 “to benefit and promote awareness that push the boundaries of artistic
practice” (RRF 2012), by helping artists and art organizations investigate new and
uncharted territory. In addition, the foundation‟s programs include grant programs for
artistic innovation, cross-disciplinary exploration, and collaboration among artists. In a
time when funding artistic experimentation is receding, the foundation is redefining its
scope of activities toward serving a wider public benefit, such as “Legacy” grants for

5
students with special needs, and “Seed” grants for small to mid-size arts organizations at
their earliest operational stages, allowing them to build capacity and programming.
The difference between the three artist-endowed foundations is in their mission
approach to grants and programs. “Some focus solely on the arts and artists while
others make grants to organizations that focus on both arts and social issues.” (Vincent
2011). As grant funding for the arts is threatened it is critical to understand the
similarities of artist-endowed foundations and how they can support the arts.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although there is significant literature about individual artist-endowed
foundations, they remain something of a mystery and scholarly research has been
limited. “Until recently, their operations were rarely appreciated or even understood
beyond a narrow circle of philanthropic professionals.” (Szanto 2011). In his article,
“The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy”, the author Andras Szanto examines the
report by the Aspen Institute, The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the next
Generation of Artis-Endowed Foundations. The report aims to illuminate the origins,
development, and present and future prospects of these foundations. The report
concluded that further research is needed to “identify opportunities to strengthen the
emerging field on behalf of the next generation of artist-endowed foundations.”
(Vincent 2011). By examining the report‟s key findings, Szanto states that these
foundations are truly designed to support the ever changing role of future artists and art
organizations. With that, he continues to discuss art as assets and the unique
complications that arise from art holdings as “charitable use assets”, which are defined

6
as art works which must be put to charitable use. What seems to be missing in Szanto‟s
article is that one should look beyond art as assets and grants, and look more closely at
the “full potential influence of this new breed. Their increasing numbers combined with
distinctive assets and direct engagement in the arts set them apart from the majority of
private foundations in the United States. Large national foundations pursue more
abstract agendas, leaving an important role for grant makers that have closer ties to
artists and the creation of art,” (Vincent 2011).
The new influence is further examined by author Eileen Kinsella in her Art
News (2012) article, “The Artist as Philanthropist”. This article discusses artist-endowed
foundations and their philanthropic efforts to support the arts following decreases in
federal funding. Kinsella examines the various roles of foundations by determining their
past and present role, and the positive effects for future funding. This discussion is
significant as it complements Christina J. Vincent‟s article, “A Newly Powerful Grant-
making Force: Artist-Endowed Foundations” (2011). Vincent goes on to explain why
the Smithsonian Institute (SI) was singled out for exhibiting a video by controversial
artist and AIDS activist David Wojnarowicz for its National Portrait Gallery exhibition
on sexuality and portraiture. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and The
Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, donors to the exhibition, were outraged over the
works‟ removal, two of many foundations announcing a decline of all future grants to
Smithsonian museums. In response, the Smithsonian‟s concern was that retaining federal
funding was of greater importance. In any case Szanto, Kinsella, and Vincent
demonstrate the important influence of artist-endowed foundations and the future of art
and artists in challenging the status quo. The issue became to look beyond public funding
to artist-endowed foundations involving their significant role for art and artists

7
concerning censorship.
What current factors led the AWFVA to consider removing future grant funding
to the Smithsonian and to take control of public opinion around the issue of
“censorship”?
On December 10th
, 2011, the AWFVA threatened to cut the Smithsonian
museum funding over a censored video by David Wojnarowicz. As one of the principal
sponsors of Hide and Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture, it
demanded the Smithsonian restore the video “Fire in My Belly” or the foundation would
not fund future projects. The video contained eleven seconds of an image of ants
crawling on a crucifix and it was removed after criticism from Capitol Hill and
conservative groups, including Speaker of the House John Boehner and then
Congressman Eric Cantor. This donation was part of a total of $375,000 given by the
AWFVA for recent exhibitions. The Warhol board condemned the action, saying “We
cannot stand by and watch the Smithsonian bow to the demands of bigots who attack out
of ignorance, hatred and fear.” The Smithsonian stood by the decision and removed the
artwork from the National Portrait Gallery, under whose support the gallery operates.
The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) immediately purchased the video and removed it
from the Smithsonian‟s National Portrait Gallery. This action and the resulting screening
at MOMA was found to be extraordinary from a curatorial standpoint. MOMA has
thirteen works that include photographs and paintings by the artist David Wojnorowicz,
who died of AIDS in 1992. MOMA joined The Association of Art Museum Directors in
criticizing the actions of the Smithsonian. Since the artwork was not reinstated at the
Smithsonian, the AWFVA‟s position remains that it will not fund any further exhibitions
at the Smithsonian museums.

8
A common legacy for artist-endowed foundations is to include art forms that
may lack mass appeal. Art organizations as a whole usually have to justify what they do
economically and compete for limited funds; especially those engaged in experimental
efforts. This affects what kind of art is exhibited, as well as how it is created.
Reminiscent of the “culture wars” of the 80‟s and 90‟s, artists today are concerned that
the trend is becoming more conservative and that art organizations that serve as
incubators of new works can have significantly profound implications for their artistic
process.
In the past decade articles and books have been written by both art and
cultural critics concerning the debate over social identity, public morality, and freedom
of expression. One of the first private foundations that became a proponent for new
forms of art and for protecting freedom of expression through its funding was Art
Matters Inc. In her book review of “Art Matters: How the Culture Wars Changed
America” (2000), Pamela Clapp discusses the “culture wars” of the 80‟s and 90‟s and the
non-profit foundation, and its development as a response. As a private foundation it was
one of the first to award grants to artists that created challenging art works. Clapp goes
on to state how Art Matters Inc. was an early foundation model that “focused on issues
most central to the foundation‟s mission- art, AIDS, diversity, censorship and funding”.
(Clapp 2000). The result was to set a precedent for the current role of artist-endowed
foundations.
In order to more closely examine what is changing besides the rise of artist-
endowed foundations, we need to look at the development of “venture philanthropy”
for the arts. In her article “Funding the Arts: Pay to Play” author Stephanie Cash
focuses on the post recession economic climate, the House of Representatives, and the

9
threat of funding to the NEA. She examines the foundation Creative Capital, which was
launched with support from AWFVA with the aim of replacing individual artist grants as
a result of the “culture wars” and the NEA. Taking its cue from the idea of venture
capital, funders invest in art projects because they recognize the educational and
economic contributions that individual artists can make. What this indicates is that a
ripple effect is taking place to counter the loss of public funding for artists.
Why is private funding for experimental contemporary works and
controversial art so important? The main reason for establishing a foundation is to
maintain the artist‟s legacy. In addition, most artist-endowed foundations best known
for their granting programs have an educational component that helps maintain the
legacy of the artist. With that in mind, artist-endowed foundations desire to give back to
the arts, whether controversial or otherwise. This is the difference between private
funding versus public/ federal funding, ( i.e.- National Endowment of the Arts/NEA).
Today artist-endowed foundations see themselves as advocates of free speech, as well
as educators that support the artist as important to society.
The author Susan Sontag once wrote that “art is not only about something, it
is something.” In his BBC News article (2004), “The Right to be Downright Offensive,”
Jonathan Duffy asks the question, “what about the art at the very margins of popular
acceptance; art that appears to almost everyone to serve no other purpose than to be
offensive?”(Duffy 2004). Duffy reinforces the fact that it is the visual arts that is most
susceptible to public opinion, and he agrees with Henderson Mullin, managing director
of Index on Censorship, that “such examples reveal how we are struggling to handle the
enormous responsibility of free speech”(Duffy 2004). This is the heart of the issue of
free expression concerning the National Endowment for the Arts debates.

10
In our current economic climate, artist-endowed foundations are important to
artists, art organizations, and art as a whole. The arts contribute to the overall quality of
life and economic growth, helping us to form an educated awareness of citizenry while
enhancing each individuals character and human dignity. To quote the artist Robert
Rauschenberg, “art can change the world”.

11
CHAPTER 1
THE VALUE OF ARTIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATIONS
The 2010 Aspen Institute‟s National Study of Artist Endowed Foundations gives
the following definition: “An artist-endowed foundation is a tax exempt, private
foundation created or endowed by a visual artist, the artist‟s surviving spouse, or other
heirs or beneficiaries to own the artist‟s assets for use in the furthering exempt charitable
and educational activities serving a public benefit. Artist‟s assets derive from art-related
activities, as well as other sources unrelated to art. Among assets conveyed to artist-
endowed foundations are financial and investment assets, art assets (such as art
collections, archives, libraries, and copyrights and intellectual property), real property
(such as land, residences, studies, exhibition facilities, and nature preserves), and
other types of personal property.” (Aspen 2010). Though this is a broad definition, it
attempts to define these foundations as diverse and complex with opportunities as well as
challenges to the reverence of this “potential force shaping cultural philanthropy.”
(Aspen 2010).
Up until 20 years ago there were few artist foundations. "Since the 1960‟s
artists have done much better than earlier artists who often didn‟t have the wherewithal
to set up a foundation,” says Sanford Hirsch, the executive director of the Adolph and
Esther Gottlieb Foundation. (Szanto 2008). In addition artists active in the 1960‟s were
part of a different environment “where the community of artists really was a community.
Those who had prospered relatively speaking saw it, as part of their prosperity to give
back.” (Aspen 2010). In addition many were influenced by Abstract Expressionism, and
they realized for the first time the importance of free expression. However this describes

12
one aspect of an artist‟s intention. The critical reason for establishing a foundation is to
maintain the artist‟s legacy.
In his article “Toward a Public Library of American Culture: Reflections on the
Centrality of Art and Importance of Access in Artist-Endowed Foundations”, author
Robert Storr argues that even though that is the dominant motive for most artists, and
“that artists somehow should be motivated by charitable concerns beyond providing for
the care of their own work,” (Storr 2010) one should be clear that the artist‟s sole
responsibility is to make good art. “It is really important to understand that at the point
where the philanthropic community begins to see artists as a new income stream for their
projects and see artists having a moral obligation to support good deeds above and
beyond what maybe would be expected of other people, it is making a fundamental
mistake about who artists are.” (Storr 2010). Therefore, beyond charitable concerns,
most agree that the maintenance of art collections and archives is the fundamental
motivation for artists to create foundations.
“Artist endowed foundations vary greatly, but there is one common theme; these
foundations have a unique mix of assets and the charitable purpose and intent have to be
carefully structured, developed, and maintained.” (Szanto 2008). As previously stated
the number of artist-endowed foundations has grown rapidly in the past 15-20 years;
almost half were created in the decade between 1996 and 2005. (Aspen 2013). In
addition, through their grant-making programs, scholarship, research activities and
contributions to museum collections artist-endowed foundations are dramatically
changing the U.S. art landscape. Regardless of this phenomenon in cultural philanthropy,
artist endowed foundations have a “long and varied history which began in 1883 with the
establishment of a scholarship by Boston architect Arthur Rotch, followed by the Tiffany

13
Foundation in 1918 and the Anson Foundation in 1959.” (Szanto 2011). One of the
earliest recognized artist endowed foundation is the Pollack-Krasner Foundation. Up until
recently, it was the largest U.S. donor to introduce artists, with more than 3,400 grants
awarded since 1985, totaling more than $54 million. Since then other foundations, such
as the AWFVA, which currently has about $330 million in assets, has announced $14
million in cash assets to arts organizations for the fiscal year ending April 2012.
“Most artists decide how their foundations are run, with the foundation selling
through art assets. „For practical purposes, artists leave art, not money,‟ says Joel Wachs,
president of the AWFVA. “Several dilemmas loom over the field as it emerges from
infancy. First the scope of activity: should a foundation focus on education and research
activities, or should it sell assets to fund grants, or some mix of the two?”
asks Szanto. ( UCIRA 2011 )
The AWFA is an example that demonstrates that not all artist-endowed
foundations are alike. “Research by The Aspen Institute‟s National Study of
Artist-Endowed Foundations, the first comprehensive examination of the topic, confirms
that we presume one size fits all for these entities at the risk of misunderstanding this
important emerging field.” (Vincent 2012). There are different types of artist-endowed
foundations and different types of conditions.
Artist endowed foundations fit uneasily within the regulatory framework for
private foundations stipulated by U.S. tax law. Their most substantial assets - works of
art - can embody significant economic value yet be profoundly illiquid and at the mercy
of cyclical markets. “That‟s not a particularly comfortable match with the most common
form of private foundations, one in which the value of assets is subject to a mandatory
5% payout requirement to be expended annually on charitable activities, typically grants

14
and associated administrative costs. Yet this was precisely the form chosen for the
AWFVA in 1988 when it sought recognition of its tax-exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. Unlike many artist-endowed foundations, the AWFVA‟s interaction
from its inception has been to fully liquidate art assets in order to build a financial
endowment and fund grants.” (Vincent 2012).
Perhaps Christine J. Vincent stated it best in her 2012 “Art Newspaper” article on
the AWFVA. “Many artist-endowed foundations, typically endowed with less numerous
works of art than the AWFVA as well as with much narrower markets, use a different
private foundation form. In this alternative, works of art are not treated as investment
assets but rather as charitable activities - those used in conducting activities such as
exhibition programs, scholarly research and publication initiatives, study centers,
etc. This form does not subject the value of art assets to the payouts requirement, but it
does mean that they actually must be used in the educational and cultural programs
conducted by foundations. That in itself represents an expense, but one attributable to the
payout requirement. In choosing this form, foundations commit to maintaining an
exhibition or study collection, even as they selectively and periodically sell art in order to
endow programs and support charitable activities, in many cases including grant-
making.” (Vincent 2012). This particular alchemy is a distinct characteristic of artist-
endowed foundations.
Artist-endowed foundations that are operating foundations are increasing in number
at a faster rate than non-operating foundations. Operating foundations are defined as
active grant-makers, that have ongoing grant programs that may include artworks. This
type of “artist-endowed-foundation conducts a substantial amount of its charitable
activities directly, rather than through making grants to other charitable organizations.”

15
(Aspen 2013)
“Also contrary to expectations, non-operating foundations classified a third of all
assets as charitable-use assets and reported almost a third of charitable disbursements as
made for charitable operating and administrative purposes; a level at the higher end of the
range identified for the foundation universe overall. This points to the potential for
strong involvement in direct charitable activities in addition to grant-making, typically
assumed to be the sole focus of non-operating foundations.” (Aspen 2013)
Grant-making with artworks is an active practice, with both operating and non-
operating foundations. What is unique about artist-endowed foundations is that among
private foundations generally they make grants with non-financial assets (artworks and
art related materials), and this sets them apart.
Artist-endowed foundations can be categorized as one of four functional types: “a
grant-making foundation; direct charitable activity foundation - either a study center and
exhibition foundation, house museum foundation, or program foundation; (for example, a
residency or education program); comprehensive foundations, which combines multiple
functions, often including grant-making; and estate distribution foundations, defined as
one formed to accomplish the post-humous, charitable distribution of assets owned at the
artist‟s death and not bequeathed to other beneficiaries.” (Aspen 2013)
Foundations created by artists are dynamic and can evolve in function, and
become the principle vehicle for the artist‟s lifetime philanthropic activities. With that in
mind grant-making with artworks represents a distinctive aspect of many artist-endowed
foundations with a focus on arts and culture. Grant-making with art works usually targets
art institutions, such as museums and universities of those supporting artists and their
works. (Aspen 2010)

16
“More than half of artist-endowed foundations with assets of $1 million or more
realize their charitable purposes by direct charitable activities, either exclusively or in
combination with grant-making. Half of these function as exhibition programs or as study
centers with archives and study collections; such foundations undertake research, sponsor
scholarship, issue publications, assist art conservation, lend artworks to museums,
organize and circulate exhibitions, prepare educational materials, etc. The other half
divides evenly among functions as house museums open to the public; operation of
artists‟ and scholars‟ residency programs or art education programs; and multiple
functions, such as grant-making in combination with exhibition programs.”(Aspen 2013)
Non operating and operating foundations are pertinent to artist-endowed
foundations and can be flexible and accommodate a variety of functions. “For
example, some artist-endowed foundations with non-operating status classify their art
assets as charitable-use assets and conduct direct charitable activities with those assets.
Likewise, some artist-endowed foundations with operating status conduct grant-making
as an integral aspect of their direct charitable activities. The construct of non-operating
status versus operating status is not a particularly useful lens through which to understand
artist-endowed foundations and their activities.” (Aspen 2013)
As previously stated, an artist-endowed foundation can be categorized as one of
four functional types. How a foundation is organized in administration, classification of
assets, and program operation will differ among different types of foundations. “It should
be remembered that artist-endowed foundations are not static; they often evolve in their
function.” (Aspen 2013). As such, they are non-traditional and broaden the discourse of
what constitutes an artist-endowed foundation.
For the purpose of this research a sampling of the most common types and

17
conditions of artist-endowed foundations is defined. The focus of many artist-endowed
foundations is on grant-making or as “dedicated funding resources - the most familiar
activity associated with foundations in the U.S. These foundations fulfill their charitable
purpose by making grants to tax-exempt organizations or to individuals, such as artists or
scholars, in order to enable these recipients to conduct charitable activities. Activities
supported by foundation grants might focus on assisting individual artists, developing
particular types of cultural institutions or art disciplines, facilitating art education
opportunities, or advancing the arts and culture broadly. Foundations‟ grants also might
address societal concerns.” (Aspen 2013)
In addition many also are funded with a combination of assets that includes
artworks and art-related assets such as archives and real estate, in addition to financial
assets. Non-financial assets are intended for sale to support the foundation and its
program, in which case a grant-making foundation will be involved in a variety of
activities necessary to make its arts assets productive, optimizing their economic value in
order to properly support the grant-making function through exhibitions and publications
about the artworks. When the assets are not artworks but intellectual properties,
exhibition and publication activities might take place to increase recognition of the
property‟s economic value.
“In some cases, grant-making foundations receive their artist‟s artworks, archive,
home and studio, or other real property, and there is a determination by trustees, directors
and officers that these should be used as educational, cultural, or scholarly resources. If a
foundation has not been designed to conduct such activities, it will distribute these assets
to appropriate organizations; most likely museums, libraries, archives, and universities, or
in some instances a new organization established specifically for these purposes.”

18
(Aspen 2013)
There is a minimum of large artist-endowed foundations that are only study
centers or exhibition programs, typically focused on the works of the artist with which
they are associated. They usually conduct programs that make their art collections and
archives, available for educational purposes. They also may lend art works to museums
for exhibitions or assist organizing exhibitions that circulate to museums, universities,
etc. “Study center and exhibition foundations are established with a combination of
assets, including financial resources, art collections, archives, and other real property
assets, such as the artist‟s home and studio.” (Aspen 2013).
A small percentage of artist-endowed foundations function as house museums.
“House museum foundations often are challenged to balance the scope of their missions
with the financial resources provided by their donors‟ estate plans. They serve public
audiences and maintain facilities, frequently with historic significance, that must be
upgraded to meet standards for public access.” (Aspen 2013).
There has been a growing number of artist-endowed foundations that are
comprehensive, combining activities as stated while emphasizing a particular unique
role. “A notable area of growth is among foundations with a primary grant-making
function that also develop, or are designed with exhibition functions featuring their art
assets.” (Aspen 2013).
There are artist-endowed foundations that exist for a limited time that function as
a “charitable distribution of the artist‟s estate in whole or in part - including the artworks
and art-related assets remaining after all other bequests are fulfilled. Estate distribution
foundations fulfill their exempt purpose by distributing their art assets, either contributing
them as grants to museums and other charitable organizations that will use the artworks

19
as educational and cultural resources, or in other types of public benefit activities, or by
selling the art assets to museums and educational institutions, in some cases as partial
grants/partial sales. Given their defined purpose, estate distribution foundations don‟t aim
to develop a permanent endowment.” (Aspen 2013).
As diverse as artists can be, artist-endowed foundations vary a great deal,
especially in terms of being grant-making foundations and operating foundations.
Today‟s current crop of artist endowed-foundations have a sense of their diversity and
complexity as well as their challenges. An artist-endowed foundation can be exclusively
grant-making in its activities, such as the Pollack-Krasner Foundation, or it may be a
foundation that is primarily a study center focused on exhibitions and research, such as
the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. And finally, some are a comprehensive undertaking of
all of these activities. The point is that artist-endowed foundations are always evolving.
They are doing one thing during an artist‟s lifetime, and over time evolving and adding
other programs and activities, always with the intent of remaining true to their mission -
to serve artists.
An Overview of Public Funding
With the economy still weak, non-profit art organizations are still trying to
recover endowment losses. In addition, under the House of Representatives, the NEA still
remains under threat. In part it is a legacy of the 80‟s and 90‟s culture wars that
threatened public funds for the visual arts. “In 1996 Congress cut the NEA‟s budget
by more than 40 percent from the high point of $176 million in 1992. Federal arts
support has not fully recovered from that decrease in the two decades since. The greatest
percentage of growth over a similar span of four years was the 28 percent increase in arts

20
funding built up between 2005 and 2010. In the past few years, a decline of 5 percent
from cuts have set the NEA budget back to a current 2012 level of $139 million.”
(Stubbs 2013). This is a challenge that the three artist-endowed foundations of this study
have particularly attempted to address.
Since the recession started forty states and Washington D.C. have decreased their
allocations for the arts. The degree of magnitude of the cuts has ranged quite
dramatically. An example is Kansas and Arizona, in which both states have seen the rise
of a very conservative political movement that does not believe government should play
any role in funding the arts. Recently Arizona has become less conservative by raising its
art funding, while Kansas has remained stagnant. This demonstrates that the current
challenges facing some state arts agencies are ideological as well as economic. While
many states are making cuts to arts budgets reluctantly and in proportion to cuts to other
government agencies, some are singling out the arts to make a point about what
government should and should not do. (Stubbs 2013). “However, continued economic
uncertainty, structural weaknesses in public financing systems, and political uncertainty
complicate predictions for future public funding of the arts.” (Stubbs 2013).
Are current cuts to public funding temporary, or a forecast of a permanent shift?
Many arts leaders believe that “current funding cuts mark a permanent decline in public
funding for the arts that will not rebound when the economy does - even if spending is
restarted; what is funded and how it is funded will change in the future. Many believe
public funding for the arts is going to have to be squarely focused on serving people, not
institutions.” (Sidford 2011).
Artist-endowed foundations have always recognized that their mandate is
substantially different from that of public agencies (NEA). As a result, artist-endowed

21
foundations have adjusted their mission in response to cuts in public funding and the
affect on the arts ecosystem. For example, they have shifted their programs and funding
by increasing support for arts education, arts service organizations, artist-centered
programs, and community-based arts programs, as well as partnering with state arts
agencies.
The NEA, Artists, and Artist-Endowed foundations
From the NEA‟s founding in 1965 there have been ongoing debates about the role
of government funding in the arts. In his book “Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA,
Congress, and the Place of the Visual Artist in America”, Michael Brenson, a former
New York Times art critic, “conceptualizes two moments: when and why the American
government came to fund the visual arts in the mid-1960‟s, and when and why it reneged
on that support in the mid-1990‟s.” (Doss 2001).
In the 1990‟s “complex dynamics played a part as to why the NEA and
government support for the arts lost congressional favor.” (Doss 2001). The 1960‟s
viewed the American artist as a “force of moral guidance and leadership which had the
capacity to restore national identity. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations believed
arts and culture was a means to an end in Cold War America, a vehicle by which the
American values of creativity, freedom of expression, and individuality could be
championed in opposition to the totalitarism of the Soviet Union.” (Doss 2001).
Many in government believed American creativity could help the country
find its center and were convinced it could be an invaluable Cold War tool. As a result
respect for programs and the creative process were defining principles of the NEA and
the visual artists‟ fellowship program. American visual artists received funding from the

22
federal government from the mid-1960‟s to the mid-1990‟s in the form of individual
artist fellowship grants.
“The visual artist‟s fellowship program was one of the crown jewels of the NEA.
It funded many of the artists who helped define American art during the last third of the
century” (Brenson 2001). The visual arts program, like the Endowment as a
whole, was constructed around the individual artist. In addition, “the visual arts program
funded visual artists‟ organizations (VAO‟s), which included alternative spaces, defined
in part as spaces where artists can experiment and create new work; in order to be
funded, VAO‟s had to be run by artists. For a number of years, the visual artists program
made money available for residencies, thereby making it possible for art schools,
university art departments, and other institutions to invite artists, critics, and craftsmen of
national reputation for short term stays to instruct, influence, and stimulate students and
faculty while practicing their professions.” (Brenson 2001) In addition, knowing how
little many museums had for acquiring contemporary art, the “Endowment put the visual
arts program in charge of a museum purchase plan that gave museums funds to buy work
by living artists.” (Brenson 2001)
Supporting artists in almost every possible way, making art available to everyone
who wanted access to it, and increasing the level of audience understanding and
appreciation were part of the mandate of the NEA. But by the time of the 1990‟s,
“government investment in arts and culture was deemed gratuitous,” (Doss 2001). In
addition “the Reagan Revolution of the 1980‟s expected private patrons and corporations
to direct the nation‟s cultural sphere, and as a result the magic of the marketplace was
supposedly to take care of America‟s art and artists.” (Doss 2001). When the cultural
tide turned toward the pseudo-populism of Reagan era neo-conservatism, support for

23
individuals and avant-garde artists became suspect to intense political scrutiny. (Doss
2001)
“The NEA failed to consider the changing cultural tide, to develop and sustain
public support, or even to generate good will among America‟s artists. Charges of
cronyism created thousands of embittered and unsympathetic artists. The NEA
simply did not have the larger base of proactive public or art-world support and
recognized that artists grants were problematic with Congress.” (Doss 2001). Therefore
they took the initiative to eliminate the artist‟s grants to protect the overall agency.
To be accurate, Congressional criticism of the fellowships in the mid-1990‟s
centered on offensive content of some artist fellows‟ work and not on the fact that they
were individual awards; after all, fellowships for individual writers continued. Such
hostility to the visual arts and the performing arts directly relates to abiding distrust of
the pleasurable ephemeral, irrational, and hence manipulative nature of images.
“Iconophobia is nothing particularly new in America, and it cyclically resurfaces at
moments of cultural and social transformation. In 1968, Congressional re-authorization of
the NEA centered around heated debates about government giveaways to subversive,
anti-war, anti-government artists.” (Doss 2001)
Congressional phobia about art and artists in the 1990‟s had much the same tone,
relating especially to social and cultural changes wrought by feminism, multi-culturalism,
and the movements for gay and lesbian rights. Although individual visual artists‟
fellowships were not the direct cause of the controversy that embroiled the NEA in the
1990‟s - the photographs of artists‟ Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe were
shown in museum and gallery exhibitions supported by the NEA‟s institutional grants,
not individual fellowships - these artists became the easiest targets.

24
The NEA‟s political foes had used artists as the wedge with which to split apart
the NEA, progressing forward a larger goal of eliminating public funding for the
arts in general. By the end of 1995, it faced not only the end of individual artist
fellowships, but the proposed shutdown of the entire agency, slated for 1997. (Gillies
2001). Since then the NEA has evolved and is focusing on financing cultural
organizations and programs that offer increased access to the arts. This current approach
to granting is not attentive to the current trends of how artists make and think about
artwork, as long as the NEA is dependent on the grace and favor of Congress, the cultural
universe will fluctuate up and down. The NEA had once taken a leadership role in
articulating the issues important to artists, but today there is no private funder that has the
authority to do that. Currently artist-endowed foundations are filling in that gap.
The decision to eliminate artist fellowships come at a great cost. Despite the fact
that thirty years of NEA public support had brought a wide variety of work from a broad
range of artists, the program was terminated without a backward glance. NEA-funded
artists had come from every economic, geographic, and social background in the U.S.
(Gillies 2001)
In a panel discussion at Columbia University as far back as September 1980,
Nancy Hanks, chairman of the NEA, gave her view of the major issues facing the arts
community in the decade ahead.
“First and foremost among the problems confronting the cultural development
of the republic is our lack of understanding of the individual artist and of the
importance of creating an environment in which the artist can flourish.” (Pankratz 1990)
Artists need more than money. They need exhibition, studio space, and access to
equipment, technical expertise, fiscal agents for projects, advice on budgeting, other

25
artists and their work, an audience, opportunities to develop new work, and the means to
do it with. Today a majority of this is being provided to artists by grass-root artists‟
organizations. These small artists‟ organizations typically present and support
experimental and new art. With that in mind, grass-root artists organizations remain
underfunded and under-served. One major reason for this is they serve as research and
development labs for America‟s future arts and cultural heritage. Developing new work
is not always successful. The rules of fundraising and public funding demand
success of the most limited and quantifiable kind, which is why many are unable to raise
enough funds. This is where the current crop of artist foundations can make a
difference. (Pankratz 1990)
From its beginning, artist-endowed foundations have been important to the art
world because they are focused on the arts. It makes great sense for artists who have
prospered to make significant gifts to pay for a foundation to help other artists. The idea
is not new: In the late 1960‟s a number of Abstract Expressionist painters made wills
under which much of their estate was left to create foundations to assist individual visual
artists. Since artist-endowed foundations are going in new directions, currently the
traditional conventions of supporting artists and arts organizations have changed. The
unspoken art world lines have been blurred, giving rise to a new kind of artist-endowed
foundation with hands-on involvement, working side by side with artists and arts
organizations.
“Artists are clearly becoming ever more important in supporting other artists and
their ideas, not just the things they make. Surely one of the great bonuses of the
commodification of art is that the artists can and are making a huge difference in the lives
of future generations of less commercialized artists. With the hundreds of artist-endowed

26
foundations already existing in the U.S. and many more to be formed by the wealthiest
generation of artists ever, their legacies will become among the most important not-for-
profit institutions to directly support the arts.” (Schimmel 2013)

27
CHAPTER 2
THE FOUNDATION PLAYERS
According to the Aspen Institute report, “the artist-endowed foundations field has
its genesis in a few foundations created in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the same era that saw the emergence of the first large-scale general foundation.
Tracking that history one can see the impact of economic cycles - the depression of the
1930‟s, which severely diminished the endowments of private foundations, as well as the
post-war economic expansion, which fueled the country‟s cultural development. The
importance of other events is evident. Chief among these is the G.I. Bill, which opened
higher education, including art education, to large numbers of students from across the
country. This was followed by the evolution over several decades of a national art
exhibition, collecting, criticism, and patronage infrastructure, culminating in the
emergence of a robust market for postwar art. All of these factors combined to produce
the first generation of artists whose members included numerous individuals with
substantial personal wealth earned from their art practice. This is the generation that has
shaped the artist-endowed foundation field as it stands today.” (Aspen 2013)
Artist-endowed foundations are establishing themselves as becoming particularly
important in the visual arts because being endowed by artists, these foundations focus on
the actual art and life of the artist, as well as their future legacy. Therefore “support to
assist individual artists is a focus for many artist-endowed foundations. These
foundations promote assistance by making grants to art organizations whose programs
benefit individual artists.” (Aspen 2013)
“When artist-endowed foundations are stewarded right by leadership then the

28
aggregate giving that is made possible by artists after their lifetime is often quite a
colossal figure.” (Szanto 2008). What is unique about today‟s artist-endowed foundations
is that these foundations have a combination of financial assets as well as being active on
the art market. (Szanto 2008). In spite of many challenges, the Andy Warhol Foundation
for the Visual Arts, the Joan Mitchell Foundation and the Robert Rauschenberg
Foundation have increased their commitment to be experimental and innovative by
creating a platform for the sharing of ideas about contemporary art and its place in the
21st century. Their goal is to be a responsive, committed, and engaged as a culturally
philanthropic organization with the aim of enabling arts organizations; and through them,
contemporary artists. Their primary goal is to uphold the principles of freedom of
expression and social support for artists and arts organizations.
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts
The Background That Sets The Stage
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWFVA) was established in
1987. Created by the artist‟s will with a mission to advance the visual arts, the
foundation makes grants to support the creation, presentation, and documentation of
contemporary visual art that is challenging and often experimental in nature. (AWFVA
2014)
In the early days the foundation brought artists, curators, administrators,
educators, critics and others together to help to shape a responsive, committed and
engaged philanthropic organization. The grant-making program that grew out of these
meetings and the foundation‟s ongoing efforts to protect and enhance Andy Warhol‟s

29
creative legacy, ensured that his inventive, open-minded spirit will have a profound
impact on the visual arts for generations to come. (AWFVA 2014)
Shortly after its formation, the foundation established the Andy Warhol Museum
(1994), a separate public charity. The museum has hosted many challenging thematic
exhibitions over the years, establishing along with the foundation a groundwork for
Warhol‟s legacy. The foundation‟s original gift to the museum consisted of more than
3,000 works of art, the value at over $61 million. (AWFVA 2007)
In addition to its role in the formation of the Andy Warhol Museum, the
foundation conducted a targeted program of partial grants/partial sales to art museums in
1992. This museum sales program placed more than 100 works in the collections of 24
museums. For example, in 2007 the AWFVA granted more than 28,000 of the artist‟s
study photographs to 180 colleges and university museums nationally. (Aspen 2010).
The Andy Warhol Photographic Legacy Program enabled new insights into the artist‟s
work process. Grantees were associates with an academic institution so that the works
granted would provide a resource for education broadly. Academic institutions
previously had no means or opportunity to acquire the artist‟s works or held collections
that could be enhanced by the award. The announcement of the grants valued the
aggregate contributions in excess of $28 million. The Legacy Program is the most
exclusive distribution of artworks to academic institutions to date by an artist-endowed
foundation. (Aspen 2010)
During the first decade the foundation made significant contributions to arts
education, historic preservation, and curatorial projects supporting contemporary visual
art. Over time, however, it became apparent that the philanthropic landscape revealed
that private funding for contemporary art was decreasing. In 1995 a national study was

30
completed revealing the scope of arts philanthropy. With that in mind, the AWFVA
concluded that the foundation‟s resources would be best served in advancing and
supporting challenging, experimental contemporary art that had few funders. In addition,
certain themes emerged that gave rise to the foundation‟s concerns and interests moving
forward and what that could mean to the significant role they needed to play. For
example, the foundation supported exhibitions and organizations that presented diverse
and under-exposed artists as well as challenging exhibitions. (AWFVA 2007)
Creative Capital and the Early Strategy to Circumvent NEA Cuts
Seeing the decline in national funding for individual artists in the late 1990‟s,
the foundation helped establish - and now substantially supports its primary partnership -
Creative Capital, an organization that directly addresses the needs of individual artists
by awarding grants for innovative projects. (Maurer 2013) The catalyst that propelled
Creative Capital was the termination of the NEA‟s individual artist grants. This initiative
was spearheaded by then foundation president, Archibald Gillies, who enlisted other
members of the philanthropic community in a major fundraising effort to create an
alternative source of direct funding for artists. The new organization would have as its
mandate the cultivation of work that was experimental, innovative, or had challenging
content. “This was a time period of social change in post-war America and as such it
offered a fresh opportunity to revisit the rationales for both private and public
underwriting of creativity in America, and to recast the arguments for this kind of
funding in order to elicit broader and stronger financial and political support for artists.”
(Gillies 2001). What developed as a result of this enterprise was a new model

31
that would support the innovative work of individual artists that addressed the social,
political, and technological issues of the day.
Creative Capital was formed in 1999, and as a national organization that funds
artists working in all disciplines, it honors the creative process with strategic
interventions of financial support, plus advisory services and promotional assistance at
key moments in the development of an art project. This early strategic and multi-faceted
integrated system allowed Creative Capital to build the capacity of the artist, with a
funded project acting as a gateway into the artist‟s life. (AWFVA 2007). This model
became “Venture Philanthropy”, sometimes called “high engagement grant-making.” The
combination of money, mentorship, and building skills to sustain an enterprise for the
long term is the model set forth for Creative Capital’s grants giving. Going a step further
about five years ago, Creative Capital formalized the “Artist Advisor Program” that
brings previously funded grantees to work with new grantees.
Today, Creative Capital has a record of having supported over 400 projects in its
history. Through its Professional Development Program, more than 7,000 artists have
been provided career, community and confidence building tools to help them become
successful artists. These 7,000 artists are in more than 300 communities around the
country, with the potential to develop even further. The program has partnered with state
and local arts councils to develop workshops that are designed to serve local needs. In
addition Creative Capital has started doing webinars as well as “Blended Learning”
workshops that will offer an incredible range of ways for artists to participate with the
program. (Barry 2014). Partnering with the AWFVA, Creative Capital also offers the
“Arts Writers Grant Program,” which is geared specifically toward supporting writers
whose works address contemporary visual art.

32
Creative Capital’s goal over the years has always been to create a artist-to-artist
teaching experience and learning model - that would recognize the challenges artists face
and be a resource and support to each other. (Pou 2013)
The AWFA has a few additional main programs that they focus their
grant-making efforts on: Curatorial Fellowships and Regional Regranting, which has
recently expanded its support to Miami-based artists, with a new series of grants called
“Wave Maker” Grants. With its belief in growing artistic communities, the foundation
continues to support under-the-radar artistic activity in diverse regions across the country.
To date the foundation‟s Regional Regranting Program has supported more than 150
projects spearheaded by non-incorporated artist collectives.
The Warhol Initiative was recently discontinued and it‟s not clear if it will be re-
implemented, but from 1999-2012 the invitation only program gave funding that
averaged around $125,000 designed to “bolster the organizational capacity of small and
mid-sized artist-centered organizations across the country.” (AWFVA 2013). These
grants were given to local arts groups with strong visual art programs. (Maurer 2013)
With the wake of the recession and the current sluggish economic recovery, the
AWFVA decided on two bold moves - to sell the rest of the artworks that the foundation
had in its possession, and to dissolve its authentication committee.
The dissolution of the AWFVA‟s authentication committee in 2011stunned the art
world. The foundation spent millions of dollars defending itself against lawsuits. And as
Joel Wachs, president of the AWFVA states, “We got tired of spending grant money on
lawyers for a service that really only benefited wealthy collectors.” (Halperin 2013)
In conclusion the AWFVA vigorously defends freedom of expression by
awarding the annual Wynn Kramarsky Award ($50,000 grant) in recognition of art

33
organizations with the commitment to preserve and defend the First Amendment Rights
of artists. Named after the foundation‟s former Board Chair, the grant rewards
outstanding advocacy, legal, and curatorial efforts on behalf of artists whose rights to free
expression have been challenged. (AWFVA 2007). By broadening their grant-making
scope, the AWFVA continues to serve as a role model for the increasing number of artists
who wish to fortify the future of their field by helping other artists.
The Joan Mitchell Foundation
Focus: The Artist and Community
The Joan Mitchell Foundation (JMF) has a wide range of grants and
programming. The artist programs demonstrate the JMF‟s commitment to understanding
the needs of the visual artist. For example, direct funding to artists for career support,
grants to organizations for support of artists and artist-teachers in their communities,
professional development opportunities, artist residencies at the Joan Mitchell Center in
New Orleans, emergency grants for artists who have suffered physical loss after a natural
disaster, free art classes for New York City youth, and artistic programming and events in
the New Orleans community. If that is not enough, one important element of the
foundation‟s funding which is unique is the unrestricted annual support directly given to
individual visual artists. (Hawkins 2013). It is important to emphasize that this is not
unlike the NEA‟s original premise of their Visual Arts Program - supporting individual
artists. Overall, the impact of the JMF has been expansive.
The mission states: “The JMF celebrates the legacy of Joan Mitchell and
expands her vision to support the aspirations and development of diverse contemporary

34
artists. The foundation works to broaden the recognition of artists and their essential
contributions to communities and society.” (JMF 2013). Joan Mitchell personally
was very supportive to many young artists. Her generosity in her own lifetime continued
after her death with the formation of the JMF. In addition the foundation‟s mission
includes the promotion and preservation of her legacy, which includes her body of work
and all of her archive materials relating to her life and work. (Hawkins 2013)
Since 1994 grant-making has been the focus and the heart of the JMF. Due to a
greater range in contemporary art by the use of varied media, the foundation has changed
its guidelines for all artist‟s grants. (Hawkins 2013). To date, the MFA grant program
that served emerging artists studying in master of fine arts programs is currently on hold,
and a new program is being developed that will reach a broader, more diverse group and
will be designed to address career needs of emerging artists. (JMF 2014). The
foundation currently awards twenty-five individual artist grants in the amount of
$25,000. Artists are selected through an intensive nomination and review process. (JMF
2014)
As stated, the JMF is primarily focused on support for individual artists. Since
1995 funding to arts organizations that promote diversity and work directly with artists in
their communities has been an ongoing focus in organizational granting. Currently
organizational support has centered to a large extent on the New Orleans‟ arts community
post-Katrina. The disaster assistance support has evolved in an expansion of commitment
to the city through the formation of “The Joan Mitchell Center.” Based in a culturally
diverse and historic area, this center serves as an artist residency program and art center.
Programs began in 2012 with the mission to support local, national, and international
contemporary visual artists. “The Joan Mitchell Center aspires to be a place for creation,

35
innovation, and transformation; supporting values of community, diversity, and social
equity; providing a forum for artists and to be a welcoming, inclusive gathering place for
the arts and the broader community of New Orleans.”(JMF 2013). One can see
that the foundation‟s mission and values inform the grants awarded. The number and
scale of grants have evolved following the foundation‟s receipt of its full bequest in 2004.
From 1998 through 2005, grants to individual artists totaled $3 million.
An important value of the JMF is collaboration. The foundation has collaborated
with other organizations through their Art Education Program, Organizational Grant
Program, and the Living Legacy Program (CALL). Grants to organizations fund
professional development programs, residency programs, publications, exhibitions, and
organizational operating expenses. Beginning in 2007 the CALL Program has provided
support to artists in the creation of a comprehensive archiving system to document their
art work and careers. Emerging artists are trained by the foundation as “Legacy
Specialists” to work with older CALL artists on their documentation. (Hawkins 2013)
The foundation and other partner organizations in the CALL program seek to
raise awareness and promote a national dialogue around the importance and process of
documenting the diverse cultural histories of individual artists. JMF plans to continue
expanding the CALL program in the years to come, adding partners nationally and
engaging stake holders at multiple levels in the issues surrounding the cultural legacies of
visual artists. (Hawkins 2013). This collaborative platform reaches a broader
constituency by sharing new ideas and innovative work strengthening the program.
(Hawkins 2013). The JMF mission approach and scope of influence continues to
encourage the education of visual artists of all ages. The foundation strives to fulfill this
mission by providing opportunities through inclusive and diverse arts education

36
programming, offered completely free to the public. The Art Education Program began in
1997 in New York City and currently partners with organizations throughout the country,
offering varied programs such as artist-teacher training and summer portfolio intensives
for high school students. (JMF 2013)
Since its founding in 1993 the JMF has retained its core mission of
continuing to serve artists. Its grant programs have expanded outward, making grants
not only to individual artists, but to organizations and communities that serve artists.
Today the foundation uses the arts in increasingly diverse ways to engage and build
communities and address the root causes of persistent societal problems, especially in
arts-based community development. For example, the Joan Mitchell Arts Center in New
Orleans is currently planning a theme-based project titled, “Rooted” to build relationships
through community arts. This project will serve as a model for artist support because
assisting visual artists actually strengthens the local cultural economy of a place.
The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation
“Art Can Change the World” - Robert Rauschenberg, 1992.
The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation (RRF) was founded by Robert
Rauschenberg in 1990 to promote awareness of the causes he cared about; art, world
peace, the environment, and humanitarian issues. No artist founder in the history of
artist-endowed foundations has ever been so involved personally in charitable causes. For
two decades prior to his death Rauschenberg conducted varied philanthropic endeavors
and was an activist in numerous initiatives such as his own Change Inc., “which gave
emergency relief grants to artists in distress, and the ROCI (the Rauschenberg Overseas

37
Cultural Interchange), which established a network of artists around the world, promoting
world peace through cultural exchange.” (Stolz 2013). Rauschenberg was also a
supporter of a range of political causes, charitable organizations such as the Coalition for
the Homeless, and ecological issues. In fact the poster for the very first “Earth Day”
(1970) was designed by Rauschenberg.
“Robert Rauschenberg himself drafted the articles of incorporation for his
foundation. They state that the foundation will pursue philanthropic efforts in art,
international peacekeeping, the environment, health and human services, and education:
„Basically, anything but religion and politics- it‟s so broad,‟ as stated by Christy
MacLear, the director of RRF.” (Stolz 2014). After his death, the foundation adapted its
current formation focusing on three areas: curatorial scholarship of Rauschenberg‟s
work, the artist-residency program, and philanthropic ventures. Since the foundation‟s
formation, the challenge has been intuiting Robert Rauschenberg‟s intentions and
applying them to a new generation of artists and art culture enthusiasts. Although
Rauschenberg‟s interests were diverse, the foundation‟s philosophy has always been to
find a way in which art can change the world through a variety of tactics and projects.
The RRF is shaped by its core values: experimentation, innovation, collaboration,
creative problem solving, and risk-taking. “The Foundation supports artists, initiatives,
and institutions that embody the same fearlessness, innovation, and multi-disciplinary
approach that Rauschenberg exemplified in both his art and philanthropic endeavors.”
(RRF 2013)
With such an expansive mission the foundation has embarked on several efforts
to serve the public. The RRF plans to broaden the foundation‟s philanthropic efforts in
addition to expanding internationally with an emphasis on the intersection of art and

38
global issues. (RRF 2014). The foundation‟s grants giving is strategically defined
by its vision and values that continues to be a focus worldwide. (MacLear 2013)
Today, through a gift/purchase program modeled after a similar strategy
employed by the AWFVA, the RRF places works in museums at half their market value.
The museums were approached by the foundation based on their geographic locations
and their existing collections of Rauschenberg art works. Through this program the
foundation hopes to establish the same groundwork as the AWFVA, for increased access
to works by Rauschenberg. Additionally, the foundation has donated more than 100
works worth more than $1 million that Rauschenberg collected during his lifetime to
leading museums and cultural centers across the country. (Stolz 2014). In 2013 the
foundation created the “Loan Back” grant program that lends works to university art
museums. This fosters inter-disciplinary study that connects painting, sculpture, and
performance based art works with curricular development. Part of the foundation‟s
mission is to increase public awareness by focusing on strategic sales, placement, and
loans to ensure the broadest access to Rauschenberg‟s work. (MacLear 2013). This year
also finalized the placement of a Rauschenberg art work in the White House collection.
Now entering its second year, the “Artist Residency Program” in Captiva, Fla.
brings artists from various disciplines into a collaborative environment. The program
advances new bodies of work, extends practices into new mediums, and serves as a
research and development laboratory for performance-based projects. The residency
program is inspired by Rauschenberg‟s early years at Black Mountain College, Black
Mountain, N.C., where an “artistic community brought out elements central to his legacy,
collaboration and exploration, learning from and working with others to break new
ground.” (RRF 2014). This program “creates a model which builds on this legacy of new

39
ideas, new work, and supporting generations of new artists.” (MacLear 2013)
Four years after Rauschenberg‟s death the assets from his estate and trust were
transferred to the foundation. This allowed the foundation to expand its philanthropic
activities by increasing its endowment in order to allow the foundation to make a
difference by strategically using its assets. “The foundation‟s philanthropic activity is
divided into various sub-programs, both within and beyond the confines of the art world.”
(Stolz 2014). With that in mind, the RRF is expanding its presence in the world of
cultural philanthropy by increasing the scale of its operations dramatically over the next
15 years. By then it will be one of the largest grant-making bodies for the visual arts in
the U.S., distributing grants equal to, if not more than the AWFVA. “The aim is to build
an endowment with a projected target of $350 million,” as stated by executive director,
Christy MacLear. “The goal is to create an endowment that will support the foundation‟s
activities in perpetuity. As the endowment increases, so will the number of foundation
grants. The selection of the grant recipients will be guided by Rauschenberg‟s belief
that art can change the world.” (MacLear 2013)
In 2012, the foundation launched the first Artistic Innovation and Collaborative
grants, ranging from $50,000 to $150,000. Expansions in art and education will continue
and a recent grant program called “Seed”, which supports grassroots artistic
explorations for both small and mid-size art organizations, will expand to more regional
areas across the country. The result of their work will be exhibited in the new renovated
project space in N.Y.C. This gallery space will also exhibit lesser known aspects of
Rauschenberg‟s work, such as his theatre designs, sound pieces and photographs. And in
addition to the foundation‟s new grant programs, it will continue to support the many
organizations that Rauschenberg himself believed in, such as the Coalition for the

40
Homeless. For example, in 2011 the foundation launched “Artist as Activist,” a project
of editioned prints to be sold to raise funds for the organization. (Stolz 2014)
The foundation is built on a legacy of an artist with many different interests. Yet
with that wide range of philanthropic activities the RRF seized the opportunity to
redefine the scope of its activities and transform its funding model. What is known from
the legacy of Robert Rauschenberg is that investing in artists and arts organizations in the
early stages of development is validating - an honor once bestowed on NEA artist
grantees. In the case of the “Seed” programs, the foundation funds $30,000 in
unrestricted operating capital to early stage organizations because they are “nurturing
the new” and supporting emerging artists. “There is a marked absence of risk capital in
arts and culture,” notes Rise Wilson, Director of Philanthropy (RRF). “Traditional
philanthropy still seems to be operating with the tacit expectation that organizations
should have at least three years of boot-strapping before receiving institutional support.
Though there is wisdom in assessing a potential grantees‟ capacity to carry out its vision,
there are a great many flaws in this metric of grant-worthiness. The ability to boot-strap
is often tied to access to wealth, which is not evenly distributed - geographically,
demographically, or culturally. So there is a justice component that is available in the
decision to invest in early stage work.” (Nauffts 2013). The grants (3 year support) are
awarded to a “cluster” of arts organizations in the same region allowing collaboration and
participation. As this new program develops and the impact is assessed, the foundation
plans to make any adjustments needed to the program for future funding cycles. (Nauffts
2013). “The multi-year support is a stabilizing force that allows grantees to test, learn
from and refine their ideas - an important process for producing innovative work and
elevating the role art plays in their communities‟ well being.” (RRF 2013)

41
In conclusion, a growing number of artist-endowed-foundations will continue to
support artists, as well as committing themselves to building robust arts communities.
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Joan Mitchell Foundation, and the
Robert Rauschenberg Foundation are influential arts funding models, who continue to see
themselves as a set of lenses through which to view the arts landscape for future funding
of artists and arts organizations.

42
CHAPTER 3
FINDINGS AND FUTURE TRENDS OF THREE FOUNDATIONS
Until recently, artist-endowed foundations “have sought minimal visibility
beyond issuing press releases about their grants, scholarly publications, and exhibitions,”
says Christian J. Vincent, author of two study reports on artist-endowed foundations.
The growth of the field can also be correlated to the expansion of the contemporary art
market over the past two decades. In fact “artists whose art works have realized the
greatest cumulative sales are associated with a foundation.” (Aspen 2013). And yet
there is a rise of small groups of financially successful artists who will be creating a new
form of foundation in the future. (Aspen 2013)
Although this paper investigates three unique artist-endowed foundations, it is
important to highlight this author‟s finding about the foundations and examine their
importance as future models for arts funding. It is apparent that artists play an important
role in defining the future of artist-endowed foundations. Looking as far back as the
culture wars of the 1990‟s, public funding for the arts has been unstable. In the 1960‟s
and 1970‟s the NEA, in combination with grants from state and local arts agencies,
provided direct support to artists and non-profit arts groups. This enabled artists and
arts organizations to take risks and encouraged the embrace and engagement of diversity.
Since the recession the resources for artists to create innovative and experimental
work had been almost non-existent. Community based, grass roots, and artist led
organizations, as well as those supporting artists that produce challenging works, have
often struggled to develop and sustain themselves. Private foundations have had the
funding to support larger established organizations leaving smaller arts organizations

43
competing for whatever government funding was available. Therefore when the
government cut funding to the arts certain parts of the arts eco-system suffered
more than others, leaving a less vibrant cultural ecology.
With the rise of artist-endowed foundations in recent years, there has been a
renewed interest in “strategic” grant-making. The three foundations studied here have
come to the realization that a long-term vision of support for artists and arts organizations
has a far reaching impact. With that in mind, all three foundations are looking at cultural
philanthropy in a new way. They are partnering with artists and arts organizations to
reach their programmatic goals, and working with artist-led community groups because
they see artists as “front runners in the movement to use the arts to address social,
economic, and political inequities.” (Sidford 2011)
Common among the AWFVA, the JMF, and the RRF is maintaining an enduring
arts resource as a reference and as inspiration to artists and arts organizations, in addition
to connecting to communities and providing direct relief, as in a disaster. Educating the
public by seeking greater visibility is also a current strategy in advancing their program
aims, as well as collaborating with other foundations to multiply their funding footprint.
Because these three foundations are venturing out into unchartered territory and staying
alert to changes in the external environment, traditional art institutions are beginning to
take notice and reflect on how best they can serve artists in relationship to their own
communities.
Even with a shared purpose of supporting artists and arts organizations, each artist
endowed foundation has a unique approach given the nature of the artist they represent.
The AWFVA in partnership with “Creative Capital” was one of the first positive new
initiatives that came out of the NEA funding cuts for individual artist grants. From the

44
beginning the AWFVA has been a role model for artist-endowed foundations in that they
vigorously upheld the principles of free expression, in addition to their continued support
for innovation and experimentation. The AWFVA was the first artist-endowed
foundation to initiate a coalition of artists and organizers sharing ideas, resources, and
methods for artists and artist led organizations. As a result community engagement
became the new model of artistic exchange. In addition, the AWFVA is probably the
most aggressive among foundations in using Warhol imagery in various commercial
products, as well as artwork sales, and it has transformed that revenue to its grant-
making program.
The example set forth from the AWFVA in servicing artists and arts organizations
has gone a step further for the JMF. The biggest change in the last 10 years for all the
artist-endowed foundations has been technology influencing the documentation of
artists‟ work - this has been a major shift. In addition artists are having to work harder
for visibility. The JMF is one artist-endowed foundation that is ahead of the curve for
tools to address this need. The foundation strives to support the careers of visual artists
and career documentation services that the CALL program provides. “The foundation
plans to continue expanding the CALL program in the years to come, adding partners
nationally and engaging stakeholders at multiple levels in the issues surrounding the
cultural legacies of visual artists.” (JMF 2013). Today, the JMF continues to expand
its programs that respond to artist needs. However “a priority in recent years has been
a focus on community engagement and artistic work that impacts social justice. This
continues to be a direction in the foundation‟s organizational granting and impacts goals
for future funding.” (Hawkins 2013)
As the third example of a proactive artist-endowed foundation, the RRF

45
continues to see the creation of a community model for artists and arts organizations.
And like the AWFVA and JMF, the foundation has transformed itself into a very active
grant-making foundation. The foundation‟s programs are still being fine-tuned and some
will eventually be restructured as the foundation seeks a more international scope.
(Stolz 2014). The focus will continue to be in serving specific communities
and maintaining partnerships within those communities. Educating the public is
becoming an important component for all three foundations. In addition, all three
foundations are actually becoming more involved in programs as they develop, which in
fact is something all grant-making artist-endowed foundations are currently examining.
Defining best practices in a rapidly growing field is another initiative all three
foundations hope to accomplish in the near future. (Hawkins,MacLear,Maurer 2013)
Overall grant-making will continue to be the focus of all three foundations, which
is becoming a trend for future artist-endowed foundations. The types of artists creating
foundations will continue to diversify because of the range of media of artists working
today. The art market will continue to have an impact with artist endowed-foundations
who sell a good portion of their art works to create endowments. And as such,
foundations will design accordingly so that they remain flexible during art market cycles.
Finally, as previously stated, maintaining an enduring cultural resource as a
reference and as inspiration is a consistent concern among artist-endowed foundations.
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Joan Mitchell Foundation,
and the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation have completed that task.

46
CONCLUSION
From the research as well as interviews with professional staff of three artist-
endowed foundations - The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, The Joan
Mitchell Foundation, and The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, this author believes
that the rise of artist-endowed foundations will continue to impact the future of cultural
philanthropy. The evidence is clear that artist-endowed foundations are important to the
future funding for artists and arts organizations, and they have much to contribute.
The three artist-endowed foundations illustrate how a pro-active foundation can
strive to look at cultural philanthropy in a new way to better serve visual artists and arts
organizations - once the crown jewel of the NEA. Artist-endowed foundations do not see
themselves as a replacement for the NEA. They see their role as a pathway for combined
strength.
The in-depth research of these three artist foundations add to the limited literature
published, creating a framework for further research. The AWFVA, the JMF, and the
RRF have all influenced the arts landscape on many positive levels. As this author
reflects on funding for the arts, there can be no doubt that these three artist endowed-
foundations have invested significant resources on artists and arts organizations fueling
the engine to re-examine the purpose of philanthropy in the visual arts today. Hopefully
future artist-endowed foundations can learn from the long-term vision of support that
these three foundations have committed to our nation‟s artists and arts organizations.

47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. http://www.warholfoundation.org.
(accessed 2012, 13, 14).
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. http://www.warholfoundation.org/.Andy
Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts 20 Year Report 1987-2007 (New York:
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (2007). (accessed April 10, 2013).
Anheir, Helmut K ,ed.,and Hammock, David C.,ed. American Foundations: Roles and
Contributions. Washington DC. Brookings Institution Press, 2010.
Aspen Institute. The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of
Artist-Endowed Foundations. ( The Aspen Institute Program on Philanthropy and
Social Innovation, 2010). wwwaspeninstitute.org/psilla-ef-report. p.1-506.
Aspen Institute, The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of
Artist-Endowed Foundations. ( The Aspen Institute Program on Philanthropy and
Social Innovation, Study Report Supplement 2013).
wwwaspeninstitute.org/psilla-ef-report.p.1-9.
Barry‟s Blog. Interview with Ruby Lerner. http://blog.westaf.org/2014/03/interview-with-
ruby-lerner.html?utm_ source=feedburner&ut… (accessed March 5, 2014).
Brenson, Michael. Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress and The Place of The
Visual Artist in America. New York. The New Press, 2001.
Cash, Stephanie. Funding the Arts: Pay to Play. Art in America, February 2011. p.21-22.
Clapp, Pamela. Art Matters: How the Culture Wars Changed America. Review from the
Grant Makers in the Arts (2000). http://www.giarts.org/print/473. (accessed June
11, 2012).
Cembalest, Robin. Between a Cross and a Hard Place. Art News (2011).
http://www.artnews.com/2011/02/01/between-a-cross-and-a-hard-place/.
(accessed May 17, 2012).
Demaline, Jackie. Mapplethorpe Battle Changed Art World. Cincinnati Enquirer (2000).
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/05/21/10cmapplethorpebattle.html.

48
Doss, Erika. Michael Brenson, Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress, and The
Place of The Visual Arts in America. Archives of American Art Journal Vol 41,
No1/4 (2001) p. 50-55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557759. (accessed June, 17,
2013).
Duffy, Jonathan. The Right To Be Downright Offensive. BBC News Magazine (2004).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/4114497.stm. (accessed June 6,
2012).
Gillies, Archibald. A New Commitment: The Artists, Creativity, and Freedom of
Expression in the 21st Century. (The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual
Arts, 2001). http://warholfoundation.org/printview/grant/paper10/paper.html.
(accessed July 2, 2013).
Halperin, Julia. How Warhol Foundation Head Joel Wachs Built a Pop Empire. BLOUIN
ARTINFO (2013). http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/905890/how-
warhol-foundation-head-joel-wachs-built-a-pop-art-empire. (accessed November
24, 2013).
Harris, Gareth. Gone-But Still Doing Good Work. Financial Times (2012).
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/236954ce-8ae7-11el-b855-00144feab49a.html.
Hawkins, Allison. The Joan Mitchell Foundation. Interview by author, 2013.
Hughes, Kyonzte. Public Funding of Controversial Art. First Amendment Center.
Review of Smithsonian controversy. http://archive.firstamendmentcenter.
org/news.aspx?id= (accessed April 26, 2012).
Internal Revenue Service (2012) Form 990PF: Returns of The Andy Warhol Foundation
for the Visual Arts, The Joan Mitchell Foundation, and The Robert Rauschenberg
Foundation. Exempt from Income Tax. Retrieved from http://guidestar.org/.
Joan Mitchell Foundation. http://joanmitchellfoundation.org/. (accessed 2012, 13, 14).
Kinsella, Eilleen. The Artist as Philanthropist. Art news, January 2012. p.98-103.
MacLear, Christy. The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation. Interview by author, 2013.
Mauer, K.C. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Interview by author,
2013.

49
Nauffts, Mitch. 5 Questions for Rise Wilson, Director of Philanthrophy, The Robert
Rauschenberg Foundation Philanthropy News Digest (2013).
http://foundationcenter.org/ pnd/fivequestions/5q-
item_print.jhtml;jsessionid=HSTERB5. (accessed November 12, 2013).
Pankratz, David B., and Morris, Valerie B. The Future of the Arts Public Policy and Arts
Research. New York: Praeger, 1990.
Pou, Alyson. Ten Years of Professional Development for Artists: What We’ve Learned.
Creative Capital Blog (2013). http;//blog.creativecapital.org/2013/09/ten-years-of-
pdp-what-weve-learned/. (accessed May 10, 2014).
Rakowsky, Judy. Creative Force. Harvard Gazette (2011). http://news.harvard.edu/
gazette/story /2011/11/creative-force/. (accessed June 5, 2012).
Robert Rauschenberg Foundation. http://www.rauschenbergfound.org/. (accessed 2012,
13,14).
Ruiz, Christina. Rauschenberg’s Foundation Could Outspend Warhol’s. Art Newspaper,
March, 2012. p.1-3.
Schimmel,Paul. Artists Supporting Their Own. The Brooklyn Rail, February 2013.
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2013/02/artseen/artists-supporting-their-own.
(accessed April 2, 2013).
Sheets, Hilarie M. A Foundation That Means Business. Art News, January, 2010. p.42-
43.
Sidford, Holly. Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change, High Impact Strategies for
Philanthropy. National Commission for Responsive Philanthropy (2011)
http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/fusing-arts-culture-social-change.pdf.
Sidford, Holly, and Frasz, Alexis. How Are Private Funders Responding to Cuts in
Public Funding? Grantmakers in the Arts (2011).
http://www.giarts.org/article/how-are-private-funders-responding-cuts-public-
funding. (accessed July19,2013).
Sofa, S. Artist Philanthropy: Growing in Numbers and Strength. Care2Causes (2011).
http://www.care2.com/causes/artist-philanthropist-growing-in-numbers-and-
trength.html. (accessed June 1, 2012).

50
Storr, Robert. Toward a Public Library of American Culture: Reflections on the
Centrality of Art and Importance of Access in Artist-Endowed Foundations. In
The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next generation of Artist-
Endowed Foundations. Washington D.C.: The Aspen Institute, 2010.
Stubbs, Ryan. Public Funding for the Arts: 2013 Update. Grantmakers in the Arts (2013).
http://www.giarts.org. (accessed March 5, 2014).
Szanto, Andras. Moderator, Art Basel Conversations 2008. The Artist as Philanthropist.
http://www.artbasel.con/-/media/artbasel/documents/transcripts/MB2008pdf.
Szanto, Andras. The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of
Artist-Endowed Foundations. Review from Grantmakers in the arts (2011).
http://www.giarts. org/article/artist-philanthropist. (accessed April 10, 2012).
Szanto, Andras. The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy. Art Newspaper, January, 2011. p.1-
5. http://ebscohost.comezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ehost/delivery? sid=9287d3aa-
fObd-4. (accessed April 12, 2012).
Stolz, George. Bridging the Gap Between Art & Life. Art News, March 2014. p.82-87.
Trescot, Jacqueline. Warhol Foundation Threatens To Cut Smithsonian Funding Over
Censured Video. Washington Post, December 13, 2010. http://www.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/contest/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121304830.html.
University of California. Rise of the Artist-Endowed Foundations. University of
California Institute for Research in the Arts (UCIRA, 2011).
http://www.ucira.ucsb. edu/rise-of-the artist-endowed-foundations/. (accessed
July 7,2013).
Vincent, Christine J. A Newly Powerful Grant Making Force: Artist-Endowed
Foundations. Grant Makers in the Arts (2011). http://philanthropy.com/article/A-
New-Grant-Making-Force/125994/. (accessed April 3, 2012).
Vincent, Christine J. The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of
Artist-Endowed Foundations. Grant Makers in the Arts (2010).
http://www.giarts.org/article/artist-philanthropist-strengthening-next-generation-
artist-endow…(accessed April 5, 2012).

51
Vincent, Christine J. What the Warhol’s Art Sale Tells Us About Artists’ Foundations.
The Arts Newspaper (2012).
http://www.theartsnewspaper.com/articles/what+the+warhol
+foundations+art+sale+tell… (accessed April 5, 2012).

52
RAUSCHENBERG RESIDENCY
Robert Rauschenberg‟s twenty-acre estate on Captiva Island, Florida, which was his
home and studio for forty years, has been transformed into a creative center that
welcomes artists from around the world to live, work, and create.
The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation launched the Rauschenberg Residency in 2012-13
with a series of five pilot residencies that served to inform and shape the program. There
are now seven one-month-long residencies annually that serve more than seventy artists
and other creative individuals of exceptional talent and promise from a diverse mix of
disciplines, backgrounds, ages, and career goals.
“I made work inspired by the beauty, the magnificent landscape, the outstanding group
of artists sharing this experience with me and the amazing staff.”
Edra Soto, Artist-in-Residence
“The development of an artists’ residency on the property where Robert Rauschenberg
lived and worked for more than forty years is one of our major programs. The Residency
builds on the legacy of new ideas, new work, and supporting generations of new artists.”
Christy MacLear, RRF Executive Director
“The best way to know people is to work with them, and that’s a very serious form of
intimacy.”
Robert Rauschenerg, 1977

53
RRF RESIDENCY PHOTOS
http://www.rauschenbergfound.org./ 2014.

54
RRF RESIDENCY PHOTOS
http://www.rauschenbergfound.org./2014.

55
THE ARIST-ENDOWED FOUNDATION TIMELINE OF ASSETS
http://artinfo.com/print.node/819223

56
AWFVA GRAPHICS
http://artinfo.com/print/node/819223

57
RRF GRAPHICS
http://artinfo.com/print/node/819223

58
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS…………………………. 58-59
APPENDIX B: JMF ANNOUNCEMENTS …………………………. 60

59
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF THE ARTIST ENDOWED
FOUNDATIONS:
The Andy Warhol, The Joan Mitchell, and The Robert Rauschenberg.
1) Tell me about your mission and what it brings to artists and art organizations who use your
resources. In addition, why does your support for activities/programs, that most art
philanthropists do not support in a sustained way, important for artists and art organizations?
2) How do you balance mission with grants giving?
3) There are over 300 artist-endowed foundations. Half of those have been created after 1996.
Why do you suppose? It‟s easy to suggest economical/political factors, but is it also something
else? How do you compare your foundation to this phenomenon? And is your foundation
designed to be flexible given current economical and political trends and cycles?
4) Have you modeled yourself after other artist foundations?
5) What opportunities does your foundation see to strengthen its impact?
6) The media environment has been limited in knowledge about artist foundations. How do you
see that changing especially with the recent publicity concerning “The Andy Warhol
Foundation”? In addition, why do journalists assume that the rise of artist foundations are a threat
to federal funding (National Endowments for the Arts)? Why can‟t they be read as a combined
strength?
7) How much of the foundations work is artist legacy-stewardship, and how much is furthering
the causes of the artist?
8) Do you think artists today are becoming more aware of their legacy?
9) What impact does the state of the art market have on your specific foundation? Is it significant
to building up an artist‟s legacy?
10) Are there enough sales of artworks to create permanently endowed funds?
11) How does the foundation feel about licensing?
12) Did the artist carefully think about the question of how their foundation will be supported?
13) Do you develop your particular assets in various ways in order to support grants, etc.?
14) Artist-endowed foundations characterize their art assets in a variety of ways. What formula
does your foundation follow, or how do you classify your assets?
15) The key to artist foundations is in the planning of the artist‟s estate. Who is in charge of
investing these artworks so they will constantly earn money? And what is the risk for artists

60
to assume their art, through art sales, will support the foundation?
16) What will the issue of legacy mean in a digital age, and in the twenty-first century for your
foundation?
17) What are some of the recent trends and priorities that you see among artist foundations that
support artists and art organizations? With that in mind, how are you planning your goals and
objectives?
18) A characteristic of most artist foundations is that they are not static and are constantly
evolving. What do you see for the future of your foundation and artist foundations in general?
Will grant-making be the focus?
19) Because of the greater range of news media, will diversity be a future trend among the artist
foundations?
20) How do you work with museums? Especially with exhibitions of art works from the
foundation?
21) Do you agree that partnerships with other public and private funders and community
organizations can significantly further your mission? What has your foundation learned from
these partnerships going forward?
22) What are some of your most effective relationship building strategies with other artist
foundations?
23) How was your organization initially funded?
24) How many trustees or directors does your Foundation or Trust have?
25) Are the current directors or trustees the original directors or trustees? Yes or No.
a. How were they selected?
b. What are their particular areas of expertise and or relationship to the artists?

FINAL THESIS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FINAL THESIS

Similar to FINAL THESIS (20)

FINAL THESIS